Editorial: Bush refuses to execute the law - again

George W. Bush is a lame duck president with dismal approval ratings, which ought to limit the damage he can do in his final year. But his assault on the Constitution continues unabated.

The MetroWest Daily News

George W. Bush is a lame duck president with dismal approval ratings, which ought to limit the damage he can do in his final year. But his assault on the Constitution continues unabated.

Bush's main tool for upsetting the Constitution's checks and balances has been the signing statement, a practice of dubious legal standing in which he declares which parts of a bill he has just signed he has no intention of following. Bush has used this device more times than all his predecessors combined.

He used it again this week. After signing the defense appropriation bill, Bush issued signing statements indicating he is not bound by four of its provisions. Bush rejected parts of the law that prohibited funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and from exercising U.S. control over Iraq's oil resources. He rejected a provision that gives more protection to whistle-blowers exposing corruption in defense contracts, and a requirement that intelligence agencies provide documents requested by Congress.

Bush's statements cited Congressional impingement of his powers as commander-in-chief. That's an argument that goes all the way back to Washington's presidency - and has been resolved for at least that long. The Constitution says the president commands the troops and Congress controls the purse. If Congress says no money can be spent building permanent bases, that's the law.

One line in Bush's signing statement is almost Orwellian: "Provisions of the act ... purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," Bush wrote. That seems to mean he won't follow the law because he is constitutionally bound to follow the law.

There's a larger context to this particular battle. Bush is negotiating a long-term agreement with the government of Iraq that will commit U.S. troops far beyond the end of his presidency, and he has declared he won't submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification. That's a violation of the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 2), which requires two-thirds of the Senate to concur with all treaties negotiated by the president.

The Constitution's checks and balances guard against a host of circumstances, including a weak and overreaching president. But, as columnist and constitutional scholar Nat Hentoff points out, the Constitution is not self-enforcing. Congress must find a way to reassert its authority, and those who hope to succeed Bush owe voters a clearer explanation of their position on signing statements and what they would do to reverse the damage Bush has done to the Constitution.